Introduction



Introduction

Public education serves as a fundamental element in the progression of the democratic experience in America. “Formal educational attainment is the primary mechanism behind citizenship. Education is almost without exception the strongest factor in explaining what citizens do in politics and how they think about politics.”[1] Teaching, therefore, serves as a political act, and the knowledge that is taught is a kind of political currency. This crucial connection between citizenship and education has deep social ramifications, which makes the development and direction of public education a particularly important and often controversial process.

The public educational system has faced a myriad of social, financial, and administrative obstacles in the ongoing attempt to provide students with a solid foundation for learning and development. Ideologically driven forces continuously contend for control over the curriculum and objectives of public education. Herbert M. Kliebard, professor of educational policy studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, observes that:

In the context of status politics the curriculum at any time and place becomes the site of a battleground where the fight is over whose values and beliefs will achieve the legitimation and the respect that acceptance into the national discourse provides.[2]

Kliebard also argues that “reforms” drive the curriculum in America. The American curriculum constitutes a series of conflicts, and that while new approaches to content and teaching occur, the old issues are never completely displaced and continually reappear. As the case in point, after nearly a century of the growth of a “progressive” education, undergirded by a belief in the inextricable relationship between the growth of science as a way of knowing and democracy as a way of living, “Design” Theory, an old contender for defining the nature of knowledge has reemerged in a new form to challenge the scientific, and by implication, the democratic nature of public education.

Intelligent Design, what many argue is merely creationism with a modern twist on science, represents a serious test to public education in the new millennium. The advocates of this concept attack the legitimacy of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory and question the content and structure of biology education with regard to evolution. Intelligent Design proponents maintain that their challenge exists in the spirit of raising academic questions and perpetuating the exploratory nature of scientific research.

Critics of the controversial situation suspect Intelligent Design is a subversive attempt to infuse a religious agenda into the realm of public education. John P. Alson, a professor of sociology at Texas A&M, criticizes the attempts of the Intelligent Design movement in his book The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism. Alson states that as a scientific alternative, “Intelligent Design does not explain, except by appealing to God’s whim, why there are so many variations of basic designs that make no sense except within the evolutionary framework.”[3]

This paper examines the evidence behind the perspectives involved in this current issue in public education. Some of the political and social ramifications of this movement will also be explored in an effort to elucidate if Intelligent Design functions as an agenda to infuse Fundamentalist Christian views and values into public education and public policy in general or as the type of science education reform needed for a democratic society. The following sections investigate some of the questions this controversy raises:

• How has Intelligent Design suddenly emerged as an educational policy issue? Is this a new or old idea? Why has this issue emerged now?

• Who has been involved in promoting this issue?

• Has the controversy grown “spontaneously,” or is there a deliberate strategy at work?

• What are the social and political factors at work in supporting this movement?

• Does Intelligent Design represent a potentially new addition to the science curriculum?

.

Creationism’s Modern Legacy

In order to conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the public policy issue of Intelligent Design, a brief description of the history and motivations behind the movement will provide an appropriate context for the policy in question. The debate over Intelligent Design essentially stems from the legacy of creationism. Creationism first appeared on the national stage with the Scopes Trial in 1925, which dealt with issue of evolutionary theory in the classroom. John Scopes, a science teacher from Tennessee, violated a state statute prohibiting the teaching of evolutionary theory. The American Civil Liberties Union and Clarence Darrow took up the cause to argue the unconstitutionality of the Tennessee law. “The ACLU and [Darrow] used the trial to promote public acceptance of academic freedom for evolutionary teaching.”[4]

The trial progressed with William Jennings Bryant arguing for and defending the concept of creationism. Bryant, a well known politician who had run for president, considered himself a religious and biblical authority. He saw the trial as a chance to raise social awareness about the evils of science and immorality infecting American society. Robert Pennock, a philosopher and historian of science at Michigan State University, explains that “Bryant blamed scientific materialism in general and evolution in particular for American moral decay and for making people question biblical authority.”[5] Bryant officially won the case, but lost in the court of public opinion. As Pennock remarks, “Having heard the evidence itself, the public mostly ignored the court’s ruling and concluded on its own that evolution had triumphed.”[6]

The court decision, and the public’s “non-response,” marked a social and cultural turning point for public education. The Scopes Trial represented a culmination of the growing social change initiated years earlier. Richard Hofstadter points out in Social Darwinism in American Thought that by the 1880s the seeds of reform were already germinating. All the major scientists, scholars, and religious leaders were subscribing to Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and rejecting William Paley’s religious “Design” argument which had dominated higher education for three-fourths of a century. Paley’s theory outlines a:

Full exposition of natural theology, the belief that the nature of God could be understood by reference to his creation, the natural world. Paley further explains that the ‘marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is God.’[7]

Darwin’s intellectual investigation into evolution displaced Paley’s theory and soon supplanted it as the main theory on creation in the classroom.

The scientific community accepted and continued Darwin’s work.

“The conversion of scientist promised early success in the universities, where the atmosphere was charged with electricity. A reform movement was under way to put greater stress upon science in the curricula.”[8] Hofstadter further points out that the gaps and incompleteness of Paley’s design argument both stimulated and inspired Darwin’s intellectual quest and was eventually a more comprehensive explanation for the complexities and “waste” in the natural order. Nearly fifty years later, the outcome of the Scopes Trial supported the observation that evolutionary theory also made sense to the public.

For the most part the scientific and academic community accepted evolutionary theory as part of the curriculum. The National Science Foundation funded various initiatives during the 1960s and 70s to foster and develop scientific education.

An emphasis on international scientific and technological competition accelerated NSF growth during the 1960s and 70s. The Foundation started the Institutional Support Program - the single largest beneficiary of NSF budget growth in the 1960s - a capital funding program designed to build a research infrastructure among American universities. NSF's appropriation was $152.7 million and 2,000 grants were made.[9]

The issue of evolution in public education only came up again in debates during the latter part of the 20th century.

During the 1980s the momentum toward a more sophisticated scientific curriculum faced a familiar challenge. There emerged a drive to institute creationism in the classroom. Some states tried to introduce acts to give evolution and creationism equal time in the classroom. “The movement experienced early success in 1981 when Arkansas passed the “balanced-treatment acts,” requiring public schools to teach creation science as a viable alternative to evolution.”[10] This legislation was soon overruled by an Arkansas court in 1982. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in to put the legal issue of creation science to rest.

The case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) dealt with an attempt by the state of Louisiana to give equal teaching time to evolutionary and creation science. Justice William J. Brennan wrote the court opinion which affirmed that creation science “violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.”[11] Interestingly, Justices Scalia and Rehnquist dissented, claiming that students had a right "to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence.”[12] Unlike the Scopes Trial, however, this time creation science, for all intents and purposes, was legally thrown out of the classroom. The law, however, cannot restrict people’s beliefs or social ideas.

The legal defeat of creation science served as a catalyst for the progression of the contemporary Intelligent Design movement. Intelligent Design emerged to present a new challenge to evolutionary theory in an attempt to succeed where the argument for biblical creationism had failed. Rather that merely supplanting evolutionary ideas with biblical claims, Intelligent Design attempts to dispute the validity of the central concepts of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory on purportedly “scientific” grounds.

Advocates of Intelligent Design such as Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, and William Dembski have tried through their various publications during the late 1990s and early 2000s, including Defeating Darwinism (1997), and Darwinism, Design and Public Education (2003), to discredit Darwin’s contention that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors over time. What Johnson and his colleagues find particularly disdainful is Darwin’s concept of natural selection; that changes to organisms over time are undirected by any outer force, but occur naturally and continue if they help the organism to survive.

These Intelligent Design proponents argue that the evolutionary development of humanity and complex organisms could not have possibly progressed wholly unassisted. This reasoning echoes William Paley’s arguments from the 19th Century. Most notably no new “findings” in science have arisen to dispute the comprehensiveness of evolutionary theory nor has any new knowledge been discovered, created, or revealed to address the weakness of Paley’s original Design argument. Still, the best that people like Johnson and Meyer can offer on scientific grounds after more than 100 years of research and development is that “intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable.”[13] Their assertion that intricate cells and organisms are irreducibly complex, and must have been the result of a “Designer” arrogantly denies the historical development of scientific knowledge, while ironically attacking science and the scientific community as being dogmatic. John Angus Campbell, an Intelligent Design advocate, has written that “[evolution is] a pedagogical policy designed to produce intellectual assent, even belief, consistent with our liberal traditions.”[14]

David Ussery, an associate professor at the Center for Biological Sequence Analysis at the Technical University of Denmark, serves as an example of how the scientific community has responded to the growing surge in Intelligent Design literature and claims. Ussery critiqued Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box (1996) in which Behe argues against Darwin’s theory in favor of finding design in biochemistry. Behe claims that design has been discovered at the molecular level and that this discovery is “so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.”[15]

While Behe asserts that design exists in molecular biology, Ussery examines Behe’s evidence and concludes that:

The evidence presented for rejection of natural selection in favor of adopting a belief in a designer outside nature is anemic…Intelligent Design is not good science. Since there are practically no papers published in the peer reviewed scientific literature on this subject, I think it makes no sense to teach it as science. Indeed, to teach it as science would be dishonest.[16]

Ussery’s analysis resonates in the larger scientific body. For example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science reaffirms that “the lack of scientific warrant for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as a part of science education.”[17]

There does not appear to be any scientifically grounded challenge to evolution, or support for Intelligent Design. Yet, proponents of Intelligent Design like Phillip Johnson attack the scientific community with accusations that biologists hide behind evolutionary theory. Johnson, a leading force behind Intelligent Design, claims that once we “understand that biologists are employing their scientific prestige in support of a philosophical platform, there is no longer any reason to be intimidated by their claims to scientific expertise.”[18]

A University of California law professor, Johnson initiated the Intelligent Design movement after the legal failure of scientific creationism in the 1980s with the Edwards v. Aguillard decision. He catapulted the movement with the publication of his book, Darwin on Trial in 1991. According to Matt Young, a physics lecturer and associate at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Johnson’s case against evolution avoided blatant fundamentalism and concentrated its fire on the naturalistic approach of modern science, proposing a vague ‘intelligent design’ as an alternative.”[19]

Institutional Support

Johnson’s ideological goal was to combat what he perceived as the detrimental effects of Darwinism and materialism on American culture. Johnson believes that

“a shallow reconciliation of science and religion leaves our young people open to materialistic indoctrination when they go away to college and learn what ‘evolution’ really means.”[20] Three years after the publication of Darwin on Trial (1991), Johnson and his followers began receiving significant financial support to begin organizing and directing the movement.

By 1996 Johnson and his colleague Stephen Meyer helped created the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. The rhetoric of the Discovery Institute maintains a stance directed toward the pursuit of science and objectivity as outlined in their mission statement: “[The] Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty.”[21] It is noteworthy that ‘common sense,” and not science, is their basis for discovery. The Discovery Institute advances these goals through its various branches including the CSC.

The Discovery Institute itself emerged in 1990 under the leadership of its primary founder Bruce Chapman, who served previously as director of the Census Bureau and the American Ambassador to the United Nations Organization under President Ronald Regan. The founding grants for the institute came from Howard Ahmason, Jr., a reclusive fundamentalist Christian philanthropist from California, and from the Maclellan Foundation whose mission is to “serve strategic international and national organizations committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ.”[22] Coincidentally, one of the cofounders of the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer tutored Ahmason’s son which possibly provided the connection for the subsequent financial donation toward the CSC.

The Discovery Institute maintains a directive toward a “national, non-profit, non partisan policy and research organization,”[23] constant with its emphasis on “common sense.” Its website () does not provide an extensive outline of the type of lab research the organization is currently pursuing, if at all. Numerous links to articles addressing Intelligent Design and questions about evolution appear, but nothing directly relating to laboratory research.

After Meyer and Johnson began their affiliation with the Discovery Institute and the CRC, these organizations became increasingly mobilized in an effort to bring Intelligent Design to the mainstream. Johnson helped outlined a comprehensive and exhaustive plan of action in a 1999 paper known as “The Wedge Document.” This document served a guide directed toward spreading knowledge about Intelligent Design to the public. This internal memorandum meticulously details how the theory of Intelligent Design should begin challenging Darwinism in the public arena. Johnson’s fervent language, conviction, and tone leave no doubt about his serious commitment to spreading knowledge about Intelligent Design on a political, and not a scientific basis.

The Wedge Document, outlining a five year plan seeking “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies,”[24] is relevant to the ongoing situation in Kansas. Johnson proposes a detailed strategy through publications, research, and media exposure in order to accomplish these ambitious goals. This type of language is a throwback to the objectives of fundamentalists in the 1920s who “stressed the importance of absolute virtue against the rising tide of an impure and materialistic world which was ignoring God and Scripture.”[25] Importantly, the Wedge Document was published under the auspices of both the Discovery Institute and the Center for Science and Culture.

These events have contributed to the current debate regarding science standards in public education. This background provides some of the players as well as some of the social conditions behind the spread of the Intelligent Design controversy. Johnson and his colleagues in the legal and educational fields are part of a massive organization which is attempting in various ways to combat what they understand as a threat of “materialism.” Their language framing Intelligent Design has more to do with ideology than with scientific theory. How Johnson and his colleagues have been able to elevate Intelligent Design as an educational issue in a modern progressively oriented society becomes part and parcel of this social policy issue.

The Wedge Document

The rise of the Intelligent Design movement coupled with the more conservative political and social climate has made several states ripe for a controversial power play over the science standards. The situation in Kansas illustrates how this controversy has played out. The Discovery Institute, CSC, and its Kansas based branch IDNet poised to challenge the statute affirming the role of Darwin in the state science curriculum. The main players of Intelligent Design are consciously working to influence public policy, and not necessarily to enrich the educational science standards of any student. Their actions followed the pattern outlined in Phillip Johnson’s Wedge Document. “Indeed, the Intelligent Design movement has set about accomplishing institutional infiltration by assailing Darwinian evolution through the ‘Wedge Document.’”[26]

The Wedge first appeared in 1999 after Johnson had become a well established and vocal leader within the Discovery Institute and the CSC. The internal memorandum outlined an aggressive five year plan of action with the goal of combating “the materialistic conception of reality [which has] infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.”[27] Johnson’s comprehensive plan has been enacted by willing participants within the CSC as well as in the mainstream academic and political world.

The Wedge proposes a three phase process which first focuses efforts on scientific research, writing, and publicity. A second phase follows which includes an intensified focus on influencing the public and opinion-making. Lastly, the strategy targets cultural confrontation and renewal. Rather than existing as abstract goals, Phillips extensively outlines the format for implementing the processes. Close examination of the document reveals that the focus rests nowhere on the actual advancement of science but rather on the reorientation of a postmodern society back into an overtly theistic mindset.

Phillips emphasizes the importance of the first stage toward research, writing, and publicity: “Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”[28] Familiar Intelligent Design advocates such as Stephen Meyer, a professor of conceptual foundations of science at Palm Beach Atlantic University and William Dembski, an associate research professor at Baylor University, have worked through their various publications to help accomplish Phase I. Phillips and his constituents recognize that the Intelligent Design movement needs the appearance of legitimacy to succeed where its creationist predecessors failed.

The Intelligent Design movement has attempted to apply the principles of the Wedge Document to infiltrate academia behind a screen of PhDs and academic publications. Yet to the present researcher’s knowledge, no evidence was found that any of these publications emerged from peer reviewed journals from the scientific community. Barbra Forest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University argues that the “targeting [of] academia and public opinion is intended to advance the Wedge’s goal of undermining evolutionary theory, thus creating an opening for CSC’s ‘new’ paradigm of ‘theistic science.’”[29]

Phase II furthers this trend toward “theistic science” by underlying the political and cultural goals of the movement. Phase II outlines how the CSC should target influential policy makers in order to give their message a public forum: “We seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff…..and potential academic allies.”[30] Unlike his previous emphasis on the need for research, Phillips advocates the necessity of “persuading” the public rather than produce scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. The wording of Phase II clearly dictates that the spirit of the movement is firmly cemented in a Christian mindset. Johnson writes that “alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely Christians.”[31] Given the history of Western science and philosophy one might safely argue that these assertions seriously undermine any claim of institutional or scientific objectivity.

Finally, Phase III represents the clearest institutional plan of attack to formulate and persuade public policy:

Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.[32]

It is here where one most easily determines that Intelligent Design is intended as far more than a scientific idea. Phillips knows his audience and plans to use his influence to convince Christian members of society about the legitimacy of the Intelligent Design cause. From this basis, the next move is to challenge major social institutions. “Discovery’s ultimate agenda – the Wedge – clearly has far more to do with the renewal of religiously based culture by the overthrow of key tenets of modern science than with the disinterested pursuit of knowledge.”[33]

This disregard of knowledge is further outlined in the document, which in its later sections takes a major departure from any perceived scientific or educational goals. Phillips envisions the Wedge Document and the influence of Intelligent Design spreading well beyond the scientific and political sphere. He wants Intelligent Design to assume a governing role in various aspects of society. One of these objectives is “to see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural sciences.”[34] Exactly how far does Phillips want this Intelligent Design movement to go? This view implicitly suggests that people should adopt a mentality that the complexities of life are beyond reasoning and comprehension.

The Wedge promotes a movement toward a more theistic mentality against the alleged evils of an increasingly secular society. Some of the strategies outlined in this document have been successfully applied to the mainstream. There have been numerous publications and books from the leading members of the CSC, such as Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and William Dembski’s Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (2001), to give the movement some modicum of academic footing. Howard Ahmason, Jr., an original benefactor of the Discovery Institute, has committed more financial support to the activities outlined in the Wedge: “The CSC was funded quite generously by Howard Ahmason…This financial security – money in the bank for which to get things done – assured the Wedge, at least for a number of years, the CSC could now proceed.”[35] The CSC has proceeded with the Wedge strategy all over the country.

The current case in Kansas is a prime example of how the Wedge has managed to infiltrate educational and political spheres. The Intelligent Design advocates, various scientists, and the Kansas State Board of Education poised themselves for an ideological and politically heated battle over the school curriculum. This issue has proved anything but simple. The unfolding hearings and proceedings in Kansas reveal just how deeply committed all of the players are in their attempts to sway public policy in order to construct a new moral and social order. The proponents of the Wedge are implementing their plan in areas with conservative Christian leanings. After all, Phillips and others see Christians as their natural supporters yet, as Paley’s followers learned to their dismay in the 19th Century and Fundamentalists learned with Scopes in the 20th Century, most Christians do not see their religious beliefs at odds with evolutionary theory. But this raises the question that if Christianity is the dominant belief system in every state, why has Kansas emerged as such a fertile testing ground?

The Spreading Controversy

The Intelligent Design movement gained structural and intellectual strength throughout the 1990s as a result of the strategy developed and supported through the Discovery Institute. Johnson cultivated strong leaders for the CSC including senior fellows and PhDs Steven Meyer, Michael Behe and William Dembski. After securing a leadership base with the façade of scientific experts and pervasive e institutional support from the Discovery Institute and CSC, a nationwide offensive began to challenge the science teaching standards in public schools.

The case in Pennsylvania illustrates how one area reacted to the introduction of Intelligent Design into the science curriculum. In 2004 the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania amended the state science standards adding that, "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught."[36] Science teachers were then issued a disclaimer to read at the beginning of the biology course stating:

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. [37]

Eleven parents within the Dover community reacted negatively to the board’s actions and filed a suit with the ACLU against the Dover school board in December 2004. The suit stipulated that Intelligent Design functions as a religious theory and is therefore inappropriate in the classroom. The Dover parents won not only in the courtroom but also at the polls. In 2005 Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design would not be included in the biology curriculum. Meanwhile the majority of the school board members were voted out of office in the elections that year.

The school board in Ohio also tried to adopt a format of teaching the biological controversy in the classroom. Only as recently as February 14, 2006 has the Ohio Board of Education voted to “toss out a mandate that biology classes include critical analysis of evolution and an accompanying model lesson plan.”[38] Further debates have occurred in other states including Kansas. The unique situation in Kansas, however, provides the best example of the effect of this public policy issue and how institutional factors are influencing the direction and intensity of the debate.

The events in Kansas are especially interesting and illuminative regarding the relationship between conservative politics, Intelligent Design, and public policy. Members of the Kansas State Board of Education have found Intelligent Design to function as a reasonable challenge to Darwinian Theory. Various members of the Board, especially its chairman, Steve Abrams, strongly defended and pushed for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in the state science standards. The precipitating drama revealed a deeply complex picture of the structure of educational leadership in Kansas, as well as a portrait of the increasingly conservative and less progressive trend sweeping through the nation.

While the story of Intelligent Design in Kansas shows how a deliberate strategy placed Intelligent Design at the center of a public policy issue, a greater question lingers. Why has the Intelligent Design strategy been able to exercise such a considerable influence and hold in Kansas? The ideological shift of the Kansas State Board of Education did not occur immediately. The background surrounding the Intelligent Design movement in Kansas illuminates why Intelligent Design has exercised such appeal among the Kansas State Board of Education and its members. The situation in Kansas may serve as a microcosm for the rest of the country. The political, social, and religious climate of Kansas during the 1990s enabled the infiltration of Intelligent Design into the educational system.

Political Positioning

During the late 1980s and early 1990s the conservative Christian’s constituency in Kansas mobilized to gain control of the Republican Party and make it a morally directed political organization. Author and political science professor at the University of Kansas Allan Gigler notes that “capturing the Republican Party served as a base for remaking state policy and sending to Washington, D.C. a Kansas delegation committed to the Christian Right agenda.”[39] This political maneuver experienced a widespread degree of success in an attempt to restructure the ideological makeup of the Kansas’ Congressional delegation. More importantly than conservative Congressmen, however, were the newly elected members of the Kansas Board of Education (KBOE).

By 1999 the Republican Party and elements of the Christian Right gained control not only the Republican Party but also the main educational ruling body in Kansas. A controversial KBOE decision foreshadowed the political and ideological battle over the state science standards which would consume local politics in Kansas. The KBOE aggressively lobbied to challenge the prominence of evolutionary theory in the science curriculum in 1999.

The challenge to the standards occurred in the same year that the offices of IDNet opened in Kansas. IDNet works as a branch of the Discovery Institute in an attempt to promote “institutional objectivity.” While IDNet was setting up its offices in Kansas, the KBOE succeeded in revising the science standards. Cigler further explains that “although the Board’s reasoning was clearly rooted in the creationism thinking of the Christian Right, the KBOE decision did not require the teaching of the faith-based notion of Intelligent Design.”[40] The new standards implicitly attempted to deemphasize the importance of Darwin in the classroom. Despite these efforts, hardly any of school districts in the state altered their science curriculum.

The public responded to these board actions by electing moderates to the KBOE in 2000. The moderate hold over the KBOE, however, was short lived. By the time of the next school board election in 2004, the moderate hold on the KBOE dissipated as a conservative Republican majority regained control of what had surprisingly become one of the most contested and closely watched state institutions. Also, by 2004 IDNet had established itself in Kansas and furthered its agenda toward promoting “institutional objectivity.”

The KBOE’s analysis of the science standards soon catapulted the Board beyond the state level and into the realm of national political debate. Even President George W. Bush weighed in on the controversy. When asked at a roundtable discussion whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught an alternative to evolution, the President replied: “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought…you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”[41]

Intricate social conditions and mindsets have contributed to the sweeping success of Intelligent Design in Kansas as much as the concentrated efforts of the Discovery Institute and IDNet. Despite all the scientific advancements of the past century, there still remains a strong and vocal constituency dismissing the clams of science in favor of religion. Culturally and religiously, Americans remains strongly devout as witnessed in Kansas. Why does this trend continue to permeate American culture? The very nature and fabric of religious diversity in America helps account for this social characteristic.

“The combination of religious diversity and intensity [in America] creates an atmosphere in which moral issues are hotly contested because there are competing moral visions, each with devoted adherents.”[42] The plurality that characterizes America also functions to polarize sections of society.

Within the favorable social and political climate in Kansas, the KBOE wasted no time in resurrecting the issue of state science standards in 2005. This time around the board had electoral support and the concentrated leadership of its chairman, Steve Abrams. Abrams emerged as a spearhead for the movement toward revisiting the science standards and also emerged as one of the strongest and most vocal advocates for Intelligent Design. Abrams has forcefully led the crusade to teach the controversy and asserts that this issue is exclusively concerned with “what constitutes good science standards for the students of the state of Kansas.”[43]

The role of school boards, however, is not completely isolated to educational issues. As an elected board, the KBOE also serves as political body. Inclusion on the board represents democratic participation “for in order to pursue political preferences and interests, citizens must be prepared to act in politics.”[44] Given the political climate and background in Kansas and the recent elections of conservatively minded members of the KBOE, Intelligent Design found a strong foothold. The setting in Kansas ultimately proved ideal for Phillip Johnson’s Wedge strategy to challenge Darwinian Theory.

Wedging Intelligent Design into the Kansas Classroom

The unfolding events in Kansas reflect a broad and intricate relationship between the Discovery Institute, school Board Chair Steve Abrams, and the policy issue of science standards in Kansas. Several interesting connections exist between Abrams and various members of the institute. None of these relationships can confidently be dismissed as merely coincidental. Even before the controversial science hearings of May 2005, Abrams and various members of the Discovery Institute were in contact and even appearing on the lecture circuit together. Abrams enthusiasm for the adoption of “teaching the controversy” in Kansas classrooms developed over the course of his time on the board.

Steve Abrams submitted the proposal to change to the science standards back in 1999. His suggestions enraged some of his fellow board members but not enough to throw out the proposition all together. On August 11, 1999 the KBOE voted 6-4 to adopt a new set of science standards which all but eliminated any reference to evolution. Shortly after the board approved the revised standards, Abrams participated in several panels discussing the impact and legality of the Board’s actions. By November of that year he participated in a round table discussion at Washburn University called “Creation, Evolution and the First Amendment.”

The discussion was dominated by a media presence and a considerable amount of tension regarding the revised science standards. Beyond the topics discussed, the participants proved to be an interesting gathering. Along with Abrams and other members of the KBOE, some of the top members of the Intelligent Design community were present to defend the actions of Abrams and the board. Steven Meyer, the director for the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, and Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the CSC at the Discovery Institute were both vocal members of the panel. Wells commented that the roundtable dissuasion served as a shining example for the rest of the nation and that the controversy has a rightful place in the classroom. Wells stated that “instead of being indoctrinated in Darwinism, as they are now, students should be provided with the resources to think critically about it. The result will be better scientists and better citizens.”[45]

The citizens of Kansas did not agree with Wells’ assessment and voted out three of the school board members who approved the standards in the 2000 elections. Sue Gamble and Carol Rupe replaced conservative leaning Linda Holloway and Mary Douglas Brown, tipping the balance of the board back to center. By February 2001 the board voted 7-4 to revise the science standards and put evolution back in the classroom. By all accounts the situation appeared resolved. The public had spoken through their votes and the Board acceded to the will of its constituents.

The tenuous balance within the school board was tipped in 2002 when conservatives Connie Morris and Iris Van Meter won the GOP primary against incumbents who favored the return to an evolutionary based science standard. With the inauguration of Morris and Van Meter, the board split 5-5. This conservative leaning trend continued into 2004 when another conservative, Kathy Martin, unseated board member Bruce Wyatt in the Republican primary. Martin was sworn in January 2005 giving conservative Republicans a 6-4 majority on the board making the situation favorable for the board to revisit the science standards.

While members of the Discovery Institute relished at this new opportunity to influence the Kansas State Board of Education, members of the scientific community rallied against this detrimental progression toward creationism. The National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association, as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science rallied to participate in the hearings and recommend once and for all that Intelligent Design has no legitimate place in the classroom. Furthermore, members of the Kansas State Board of Education voiced their dismay at the unfolding events. Democratic board member Janet Waugh expressed her distress: “[Kansas] is becoming a laughingstock not only of the nation, but of the rest of the world, and I hate that.”[46]

The hearings convened in May 2005 and testimony was given by both sides of the debate. A 25 member Science Education Standards Committee submitted its recommendation to the board that evolution and Darwinian Theory should remain a staple of the science curriculum. Eight of the committee members, however, dissented from this recommendation and penned their own minority report. The ensuing hearings dealt with these conflicting recommendations. The progression of the hearings made several factors abundantly clear regarding the nature of this public policy controversy primarily that this entire issue is taking away focus from the real problem of improving science education.

Cultural Factors

The events unfolding in Kansas serve as a cultural microcosm for the unfolding changes in the rest of the country; especially within the Republican Party:

During its rise to political triumph and domination of the Republican Party, the modern conservative movement has relied heavily on two key constituencies with an overriding interest in the outcomes of scientific research in certain areas: industry and the religious right.[47]

This focus on the power and influence of the religious right has intensified since 2000, when George W. Bush was inaugurated. Several factors have contributed to this dramatic shift toward moral, religious, and political conservatism.

The nature of religious evangelicals and their conservative tendencies have expanded beyond the pulpit into the political arena. Paradoxically, this new and intensified investment in the machinations of American politics functions as a far cry from the early roots of the movement: “From [conservative Protestantism’s] modern emergence in the 1920s, fundamentalism and evangelicalism distrusted active political participation.”[48] The temperament of conservative Protestantism has fundamentally altered and this section of society now serves as a major political and cultural force within America.

Their presence is felt in the new round of debates on abortion, their advocacy against stem cell research, and their approval of a more theistic approach to science. “Conservative Protestants broke with their past to change the world around them, perhaps not realizing how much they themselves would be changed along the way.”[49] It is within this atmosphere of change that the Intelligent Design debate has progressed in Kansas.

The Kansas State Board of Education Science “Hearings”

The science hearings held in May 2005 polarized the school board. While the science standards were under consideration, an ongoing power play drove the hearings. Members of the Minority, who wrote a report disputing the validity of Darwinism in the classroom, had deep connections to the greater Intelligent Design community. Dr. William Harris first directed the Minority with their work in composing the report. While Harris was working for the KBOE, he was also serving as a managing director at IDNet working to “promote the scientific evidence of Intelligent Design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.”[50]

Harris was not the only board member with connections to IDNet. Harris recommended that lawyer John Calvert to represent the interests of the Minority for the school board. Initially there were a series of public forums during January 2005 to address the objectives of the writing committee. The public generally split over the issue and the Intelligent Design community became nervous about the type of encouragement they received. The citizens who primarily supported the Intelligent Design movement based their approval on creationism.

Most of the Minority supporters offered religious arguments for the Minority proposals and against evolution, thus exposing the fact that the primary motivations for support of the Minority position were religious and not “scientific.”[51]

Calvert and his associates realized that these types of public forums would actually hinder the development of the “scientific legitimacy” of the movement.

Calvert contributed to the Discovery Institute’s web log emphasizing the need for more legitimate and controlled hearings. Calvert wrote that “this [public forums process] is not the proper process for deciding this issue. Focused hearings from experts are desperately needed to cut through the misinformation, ridicule, and half truths.”[52] Calvert and his associates wanted a situation where they could control the witnesses and their testimony. Along with conservative board members Steve Abrams, Connie Morris, and Kathy Martin, Calvert worked toward creating the quasi-legal format for the science hearings.

Initially the scientific community wanted no part in this discussion. The Kansas Citizens for Science felt that scientists should definitely boycott the meetings claiming that “Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism are not science…[therefore] the science community should not put itself in the position of participating in a rigged hearing where non-scientists will appear to sit in judgment and find science lacking.”[53] The scientific community, however, could not remain silent as Intelligent Design continued to challenge the place of evolution in the science curriculum.

Pedro Irigonegaray emerged to represent the interests of the scientific community to the Kansas Board during the hearings. Irigonegaray, a respected civil rights and defense lawyer from Topeka, took up the legal cause an allied himself with the Coalition for Science. The coalition is a pro-evolutionary group responding to the attempts of conservative KBOE members to alter the science standard. The Coalition for Science “rejects the show-trial hearings, whose purpose is to make it appear that Intelligent Design creationism and the well-established science of evolution are on equal footing.”[54] Irigonegaray adopted a defense which dealt less with the scientific evidence, and focused closely on the political, legal, and educational issues involved with these hearings.

The transcript from the hearings from May 5-7 2005 depicts the Minority defending the merits of their position. Dr. Harris proposed in his opening statements that the Minority’s goal at the end of the hearings is that “[the Minority] will be allowed to teach the controversy that does exist over origins [because] it is simply good science”[55] The scripted banter between Calvert and his assortment of witnesses focused on legitimizing the issue and the position of Intelligent Design. However, most of the expert witnesses taking the stand for Calvert and the IDNet were neither clinical biologists and testified to issues outside their field of expertise.

Dr. William Harris, who received his PhD in nutritional biochemistry and primarily studies cardiovascular disease, testified for the defense. Dr. Harris, however, testified that his critical thinking on evolution did not stem from research or any scientific interest. Dr. Harris testified that he initially took a Bible class because a girl he liked was taking the same Bible study course “Through that experience,” Harris said, “I had a new look at Christianity and I became a Christian so my world view changed. It never really occurred to me think about [evolution]. But when my world view changed I started getting interested in looking”[56] Dr. Harris testimony is one example of how the defense and John Calvert tried to frame the theory of Intelligent Design as scientifically legitimate and relevant to the debate about science standards in public education.

The Minority worked under the influence of IDNet and the academics it enlisted to perpetuate Intelligent Design theory. According to CRC members like Stephen Meyer and John Angus:

The issue is not the intrusion of religion into scientific matters. The issue is the educational importance of acknowledging the scientific, philosophic, and theological questions raised by Darwinian evolution as matters for critical awareness, understanding, and individual judgment in the spirit of consumer protection.[57]

How can the issue not be about religion if the people investigating the merit of Intelligent Design, like Dr. Harris, are admittedly driven and influenced by spiritual experiences and beliefs? Dr. Harris’ Christian worldview is shared by the individuals funding and researching Intelligent Design like Howard Ahmason, Jr. and the Maclellan Institute.

Irigonegaray formatted his cross-examination by attacking the political and religious arguments adopted by the defense. Any questions posed by Irigonegaray could not be controlled or influenced by Calvert. Irigonegaray directly asked Harris to identify where in the Kansas science standards that criticisms of evolution were expressly forbidden in the classroom. Harris conceded that the language does not expressly forbid discussing challenges to evolution but that he thinks the statue implicitly forbids discussion. Irigonegaray also asked “if this is all about science and not about philosophy or religion why do you keep bringing up atheism, materialism, naturalism, and humanism to this argument?”[58] Harris vague response raises some suspicion about the motives behind changing the standards. Harris responded that “this is a scientific controversy that has powerful theistic implications. So it’s not all about science. It’s – the core is about science, but there is a penumbra, there’s an umbrella out here that’s philosophical and religious and that’s where it comes in.”[59] Dr. Harris fails to clarify his position throughout the rest of his testimony.

The hearings progressed with this same pattern of questioning. Calvert and his witnesses discussed the enlighten prospects of Intelligent Design while Irigonegaray questioned the legitimacy and motivations behind the entire movement. By the end of the hearings, however, the Board of Education for the state or Kansas decided 6-4 that students should have compulsory education about theories which challenge evolution. Steve Abrams applauded the decision saying that “this is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do. This absolutely teaches more about science.”[60] While Mr. Abrams might herald this decision as a progressive step forward for science education and a clear stance against the trends of the modern world, he and his colleagues have tremendously violated principles of public education and democracy.

The Board confirmed the new science standards on February 14, 2006. The new science standards explain the rationale and motivations of the board in their decision to included questions to evolutionary theory in the classroom:

The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory. All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to the science curriculum standards, we are encouraged by the similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution.[61]

The inclusion of these new rules into the science education in Kansas sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the progression of legitimate scientific inquiry in public schools.

Conclusions:

Evolution, creationism, Intelligent Design; what does any of this matter? How is this reoccurring conflict relevant in the rapidly changing world of the 21st Century? This seemingly minor debate over a science curriculum, however, symbolizes a much larger social issue which will ultimately affect the nature of the growing and changing society in America. The evidence surrounding the development of the Intelligent Design controversy leads to a conclusion that interest groups and political parties are working to undermine the fabric of knowledge in the classroom.

These groups perpetuate an authoritarian type of knowledge while the form of knowledge necessary for a democratic society is public and empirical. Tampering with the nature of education undermines a main pillar of democracy. Standardizing education and limiting the degree of inquiry and free debate inhibits the open development of students into political participants. Education is the main factor in the development of political consciousness. Through implementing a one sided and rigid approach to knowledge, the proponents of Intelligent Design and their conservative backers are circumventing the openness of democratic choice.

Intelligent Design functions as part of a larger and more expansive problem. The fact that Intelligent Design has gained acceptance as part of the curriculum for the state of Kansas is hard to fathom. Technological and scientific advancements have characterized the progressive movement of education and society in the new millennium. Scientists are on the verge of extensive breakthroughs in understanding the nature of genetics and the intricacies of disease; yet within this climate of inquiry and advancement, Intelligent Design exists as significant challenge to the dominance of evolutionary theory.

Scientists have not initiated this controversy, but they are now faced with the added difficulty of defending Darwinism while their time would be better served conducting research. Politics and religion have manipulated the old tradition of creationism into a new pseudo-scientific movement which is actually not involved in scientific research. The names may have changed but the fundamental principles, objectives, and fears have remained steadfast since William Jennings Bryant first argued for the validity of Biblical creationism.

This increasingly hostile attitude toward Darwinian Theory stems from a deep fear from a conservative and traditionally Christian constituency. While Christians in the 1920s lamented the dwindling dominance of the Scripture and God in American society, a new generation has inherited this position arguing for the implicit inclusion of God in the classroom through claiming the existence of a “Designer.” Phillip Johnson, Steve Abrams, and John Calvert embody the new conservatives who want to shape society through education. For all of Phillip Johnson proselytizing about objectivity, he actually wants nothing of the sort.

Johnson has a forum and the means to spread the message of Intelligent Design because he is well funded. The Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture, and IDNet are merely vessels for perpetuating the conservative objectives outlined in the Wedge Document. These organizations provide the monetary means for this assault on science and secular society. The religious nature of these organizations undermines any claim to institutional objectivity. The Wedge Document affirms this conclusion. These organizations are acting out a full scale media assault in an attempt to reverse the cultural fabric of America. The frightening aspects of their activity are their recent successes.

The Kansas story represents how this movement is beginning to gain acceptance. This Intelligent Design “victory” was not achieved in the name of science. IDNet, working closely with several of the board members, provided the support for the Board of Education to adopt this new stance about science. IDNet receives its primary funding from the Discovery Network, and only opened up its offices in Kansas after the initial question over science standards in 1999. Chairman Steve Abrams has appeared on lectures circuits with CSC fellows and members of his board work for IDNet. Clearly institutional factors were at work to enable this dramatic change to the science curriculum in Kansas. Even the hearings on the science standards were heavily biased with a strong Intelligent Design presence.

As it stands Intelligent Design is the accepted standard in Kansas. Conservative Christians continue to grow as a well funded and politically influential demographic. This growing trend represents the influence of political interest groups and reflects their substantially growing power and ability to sway political opinions and actions. The situation in Kansas will only serve to encourage the Discovery Institute to initiate more challenges to the nature of education. Education is the gateway to democracy and influencing education is akin to determining politics. Americans need to develop a greater awareness about this threat. Conservatives continue to infiltrate social agendas because they are a proactive group. Mobilizing a society is no small task, but citizens must embrace their civic duties through political participation. The stakes are high and the prize is nothing less than preserving the free democratic nature of education and knowledge.

Bibliography

Alson, John P. The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism. Nebraska:

iUniverse, Inc., 2003.

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Little Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.

New York: The Free Press, 1996.

Campbell, John Angus. Darwinism, Design, and Public Education. East Lansing:

Michigan State University, 2003.

Forrest, Barbra. Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford:

Oxford University, 2004.

Frank, Thomas. What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004

Green, John C. The Christian Right In American Politics: Marching to the Millennium.

Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003.

Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston: Beacon Press,

1967.

Kliebard, Herbert M. The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893-1958. New York:

Routledge, 1995.

Larson, Edward J. Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and

Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Miller B. James, An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on

Evolution. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2001.

Mooney, Chris. The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books, 2005.

Nie, Norman H. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Pennock, Robert T. Intelligent Design and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and

Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001.

Pennock, Robert T. Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.

Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2002.

Johnson, Phillip E. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Illinois: InterVarstiy Press,

1997.

Wilcox, Clyde. Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics.

Colorado: Westview Press, 1996.

Wolfe, Alan. The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our

Faith. New York: Free Press, 2003.

Young, Matt. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New

Creationism. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005.

Web Citations

"AAAS Board Resolution." 18 Oct. 2002. American Association for the Advancement of

Science. .

"About Us." The Maclellan Foundation. .

Abrams, Steve. "A Column about Kansas Science Standards." 14

Nov 2005.

"An Overview of the First 50 Years." 27 Jan. 2005. National Science Foundation.

.

Associated Press. "Kansas School Board Redefines Science." 8 Nov. 2005. CNN.

.

Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision." 6 Nov. 2005. The Talk

Origins Archive: Exploring The Creation/Evolution Controversy. .

Froomkin, Dan. "White House Briefing Column" The Washington Post 2 Aug 2005.



Intelligent Design Network .

Johnson, Phillip. "The Wedge Document." .

.

"Kansas Curricular Standards for Science Education." 8 Nov. 2005. School Improvement

and Accreditation. .

"Kansas Evolution Hearings: Part 1." The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring The

Creation/Evolution Controversy.

.

Krebs, Jack. "Kansas Evolution Hearings: Summary of the Background to the Kansas

"Science Hearings" of May, 2005." 1 Jul. 2005. The Talk Origins Archive:

Exploring The Creation/Evolution Controversy.

.

"Mission Statement." Discovery Institute. .

Rudoren, Jodie. "Ohio Board Undoes Stand On Evolution." The New York Times

15 Feb 2006.

Slevin, Peter "Kansas Education Board first to back Intelligent Design." The

Washington Post 8 Nov 2005. < >

"Speaking for Science Education in Kansas." The Coalition for Science.

.

"The Road to the Courthouse." Beliefnet.

.

Wells, Jonathan. “All forms of science designed for discussion." Topeka Capital-Journal

22 Nov 1999. .

“William Paley (1743-1805)." University of California, Berkeley: Museum of

Paleontology. .

-----------------------

[1] Norman H. Nie Education and Democratic Citizenship in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) 2.

[2] Herbert M. Kliebard The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893-1958 (New York: Routledge, 1995) 250.

[3] John P. Alson The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism (Nebraska: iUniverse, Inc., 2003) 130.

[4] Edward J. Larson Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 63.

[5] Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2002) 3.

[6] IBID.

[7] "William Paley (1743-1805)" University of California, Berkeley: Museum of Paleontology. .

[8] Richard Hofstadter Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967) 19.

[9] "An Overview of the First 50 Years" 27 Jan. 2005. National Science Foundation. .

[10] Matt Young Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005) 3

[11] "Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision" 6 Nov. 2005. The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring The Creation/Evolution Controversy. .

[12] IBID.

[13] William A. Dembski “The Intelligent Design Movement” An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution Ed. James B. Miller (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001) 441.

[14] John Angus Campbell “The Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and the Philosophy of Public Education” Darwinism, Design, and Public Education Ed. John Angus Campbell & Stephen Meyer (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2003) 19.

[15] Michael Behe Darwin’s Little Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996) 232.

[16] David Ussery “Darwin’s Transparent Box: The Biochemical Evidence for Evolution” Why Intelligent Design Fails (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005) 56.

[17] "AAAS Board Resolution" 18 Oct. 2002. American Association for the Advancement of Science. .

[18] Phillip E. Johnson “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism” Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives Ed. Robert T. Pennock (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001) 72.

[19] Young, 3.

[20] Phillip E. Johnson Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997) 87.

[21] "Mission Statement" Discovery Institute. .

[22] "About Us" The Maclellan Foundation. .

[23] "Mission Statement" Discovery Institute. .

[24] Phillip Johnson "The Wedge Document." . .

[25] Clyde Wilcox Onward Christian Soldiers? (Colorado: Westview Press, 1996) 28.

[26] Thomas Frank What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004) 254.

[27] Johnson, "The Wedge Document."

[28] Johnson, "The Wedge Document."

[29] Barbara Forrest “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism is Wedging Its way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream” Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives Ed. Robert T. Pennock (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001) 41.

[30] Johnson, "The Wedge Document."

[31] IBID.

[32] IBID.

[33] Chris Mooney The Republican War on Science (New York: Basic Books, 2005) 173.

[34] Johnson, "The Wedge Document."

[35] Barbra Forrest Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 23.

[36] "The Road to the Courthouse." Beliefnet. .

[37] IBID.

[38]Jodie Rudoren "Ohio Board Undoes Stand On Evolution." The New York Times 15 Feb 2006. .

[39] Allan J. Cigler “The Kansas Christian Right and the Evolution of Republican Politics” The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium Ed. John C. Green (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003) 149.

[40] Cigler,155.

[41]Dan Froomkin "White House Briefing Column" The Washington Post 2 Aug 2005. .

[42] Wilcox, 18.

[43] Steve Abrams "A Column about Kansas Science Standards." 14 Nov 2005. .

[44] Nie, 26.

[45] Jonathan Wells “All forms of science designed for discussion." Topeka Capital-Journal 22 Nov 1999. .

[46] Associated Press "Kansas School Board Redefines Science." 8 Nov. 2005. CNN. .

[47] Mooney, 7.

[48] Alan Wolfe The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith (New York: Free Press, 2003) 117.

[49] Wolfe, 117.

[50] Intelligent Design Network .

[51] Jack Krebs "Kansas Evolution Hearings: Summary of the Background to the Kansas "Science Hearings" of May, 2005" 1 Jul. 2005. The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring The Creation/Evolution Controversy. .

[52] Krebs, "Kansas Evolution Hearings: Summary of the Background to the Kansas "Science Hearings" of May, 2005."

[53] IBID.

[54] "Speaking for Science Education in Kansas" The Coalition for Science. .

[55] "Kansas Evolution Hearings: Part 1" The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring The Creation/Evolution Controversy. .

[56] IBID.

[57] John Angus Campbell “The Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and the Philosophy of Public Education” Darwinism, Design, and Public Education Ed. John Angus Campbell & Stephen Meyer (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2003) 21.

[58] "Kansas Evolution Hearings: Part 1."

[59] "Kansas Evolution Hearings: Part 1."

[60]Peter Slevin "Kansas Education Board first to back Intelligent Design" The Washington Post 8 Nov 2005.

[61] "Kansas Curricular Standards for Science Education" 8 Nov. 2005. School Improvement and Accreditation. .

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download